AI Creativity and Copyright: Copyright Office Rejects DABUS as Author
Science & Technology / IPR · Friday, 4 September 2026
The Copyright Office of India rejected an application seeking to recognise the AI system DABUS as the author of an AI-generated artwork, while accepting that the work itself could satisfy the originality requirement. The ruling distinguishes originality from authorship under the Copyright Act, 1957, leaving any extension of authorship to AI for Parliament to decide.
Quick highlights
- Copyright Office of India rejected recognising AI system DABUS as author of an AI-generated artwork.
- The Office accepted that the AI-generated work itself could satisfy the originality requirement.
- Under the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 2(d)(vi) defines the author of a computer-generated work as the 'person who causes the work to be created'.
- The ruling distinguishes originality (a quality of the work) from authorship (a legal status).
- Extension of legal personhood or authorship to AI is left to Parliament.
Context
The Copyright Office of India rejected an application seeking to recognise the AI system DABUS as the author of an AI-generated artwork, while accepting that the work itself could satisfy the originality requirement.
Key Facts
AI creativity refers to the use of artificial intelligence systems to generate creative outputs such as images, music, literature, videos and designs. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright protects original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works. For a computer-generated work, Section 2(d)(vi) identifies the author as the 'person who causes the work to be created'. The ruling distinguishes originality from authorship: an AI-generated work may be original, but AI itself cannot currently be its statutory author; the legally responsible human may qualify as the person who 'causes' the work to be created.
Significance
The decision provides an important precedent for generative AI, intellectual property and creative industries. It clarifies that Indian copyright law remains anchored in human authorship, while preserving protection for original AI-assisted outputs through the human who causes their creation.
Challenges / Way Forward
Questions of accountability, ownership and human agency in AI systems remain open. Any extension of legal personhood or authorship to AI is left for Parliament to decide through legislative amendment rather than administrative interpretation.
Exam Angle
GS Paper III (Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property Rights, IT and emerging technologies, digital economy); GS Paper IV (ethics of creativity, accountability, ownership, responsibility and human agency in AI). Essay: AI and human creativity; technology and law; innovation versus accountability. Prelims: Copyright Act 1957, Section 2(d)(vi), DABUS.
Remember this
- DABUS: AI system whose claim to authorship of an artwork was rejected by the Copyright Office of India.
- Governing law: Copyright Act, 1957.
- Section 2(d)(vi): author of a computer-generated work = 'person who causes the work to be created'.
- Key distinction in ruling: originality (of the work) vs authorship (legal status).
- AI-generated work can be original but AI cannot be its statutory author.
- Extension of authorship/personhood to AI left to Parliament.
More from Friday, 4 September 2026
- Air Marshal Jitendra Mishra Appointed First Full-Time CEO of Ram Temple Trust
- RAKSHA: India's 10-Year Defence Diplomacy Roadmap
- Aero India 2027: 16th Edition at Yelahanka, Bengaluru
- The Global Bond Sell-Off and Its Implications for India
- Supreme Court: Bar Council of India Has No Disciplinary Jurisdiction Over Law Students
- India–Belgium Talks: Pledge to Double Bilateral Trade in Five Years